Tag Archives: Environment

Our skies and clouds have been changing unnaturally for decades, yet very few people, seem to have noticed. (Photo: www.occupycorporatism.com).

Mainstream media is now talking about measures to ‘save the planet’ from non-existent global warming.

One of the greatest hoaxes in human existence is the notion that humans are responsible for catastrophic climate events. But even people who believe such a fairy tale are hard pressed to explain why it is that the environmental movement led by global organizations such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, which are heavily financed by corporations, refuse to talk about two very specific issues.

First, fossil fuels are responsible for about 13% of all greenhouse gases sent into the atmosphere, while animal agriculture is responsible for 51% of the total. You would think that so-called environmentalists and their followers would be all over the place asking government to curb wasteful industrial agriculture, but they are not. In fact, most environmentalists aren’t even aware that industrial agriculture causes more damage to the environment than fossil fuels will ever be able to.

Second, Geoengineering, the attempt to manage planetary climate via aerosol spraying, using space mirrors, and ionospheric manipulation, among others, are not and have never been a conspiracy theory or something that has been in testing phases for decades. As we have reported ad nauseum, geoengineering is an everyday practice and has been so for at least 60 years.

Despite the fact that geonegineering has been fully operational for over half a century, more climate extremists talk about manipulating global climate as a novelty and as an option to lack of ‘political will’ to impose austerity policies on human development.

Climate extremists, who are usually presented as climate experts or geoengineering experts, have had their voices echoed more frequently by mainstream media with the only intention to smoothly phase in the chatter about geoengineering as the only solution to save the planet from non-existant global warming.

From globalists falsifying temperature records, to the assignment of blame over elements that do not cause global warming, climate extremists are now ganging up to create strong support for what they call plan B. This plan B involves changing the Earth’s climate with a manual override. “Engineersand climatologistshave already writtena lot about thetechnologies that couldcool it.Now, somewant to take theirexperimentalcomputer modelsto real life,” writes El País, a Spanish newspaper that reports on geonegineering as the newest road to follow if we want to save ourselves.

Behind thewordgeoengineeringthere is arange of technologiesthat sharethe same point ofdeparture and arrival. If humansfail toreduce emissions ofCO2and othergreenhouse gases the climate extremists see themselves as charged with the task to change theweather to coolthe planet. It is not a surprise that mainstream media have gone from totally ignoring geoengineering practices to lying about them in such a short time. It is also not a surprise they only talk about the more mundane practices to carry out geoengineering at a large scale.

Most media outlets only report on measures such as paintingroofsand facadesto reflectsunlight, setting up giant mirrorsin space to create areas ofplanetaryshadow and CO2 capturing, as the most important practices. They don’t go near aerosol spraying, the most common geoengineering practice that has been around for decades now.

Aerosol spraying is a two-stage practice. It blocks solar radiation while contaminating the environment in which we live including the soil and the water; yet climate extremists see it as part of the equation to reduce natural solar radiation from reaching the planet. “If we do notrestrainemissionsandglobal meantemperatures exceed thethreshold of2 degrees, we need to introduce new elementsinto the equation,” say some geoengineers. This notion has been widely discredited by true climate scientists as old predictions about temperature rising have not taken place.

According to some climate terrorists, although the Sun is not to blame for human emissions, reducing its radiationcould lowertemperatures. But neither are the oceansor the soil guilty ofanything, however, aerosol spraying punishes soil fertility and oceanic ecosystems daily anywhere this technique is used.

Along withgeoengineeringfrom space, management of solar radiationand capturingCO2, climate terrorists have other ideas they would like to implement:

Although publicly he does not consider himself a faithful supporter of geonegineering, he is actively been studying alternativesif allelse fails.“I support small-scale experimentsto help buildknowledge aboutthe basic processesrelated to solargeoengineering” he explains.

“What I do notsupport,at least for now, are theexperimentsthat aim todeveloptechnologydeployment,”he says.

Unfortunately, Mr. Caldeira has not heard the news about the ongoing geoneginering programs led by the military and private contractors. He probably has not heard about existing patents for deployment technologies, and he certainly has not seen the planes spraying heavy metals right over his head.

What Caldeira and his team say is that they think it is a good idea to play withthe sun, but mostgeoengineerslook atthe clouds.While somewant to set up mirrorsthat reflectsome of the light, others are said to be studyinghow to make clouds more permeabletoradiationand heat so that they can escapeinto space. That is exactly what the geoengineering programs have been doing for over half a century. The implementation of geonengineering programs have been creating “alternative cloud systems” that block sun light at a specific location. This phenomenon is seen daily over large cities worldwide.

The closest climate terroristshave beento completing one ofthese experiments wasin 2011.Then, engineers and Britishclimatologistsdevised theSPICEproject, the Stratospheric ParticleInjectionfor ClimateEngineering. The project allegedly sought toinjectaerosolssuch assulfur dioxide inthe upper layers ofthe atmosphereto increase therefractiveclouds.Mr. Caldeira and his peers are decades late since this is exactly what other climate terrorists have been doing since the 1960s.

“SPICE is still investigating stratosphericaerosolinjection. Part of the projectwas tostudy theinjectionfrom a balloonand a partof thisplanwas to build theprototypeairship.” For various reasons, the scientists decided not togo aheadwiththis project,” says PiersForster, principal investigator of SPICE.

The controversy thatmarked theplanbetween thepublic and theBritish scientificcommunityitselfled to thecreation of a a study to determine the feasibilityof variousgeoengineering projectsbutalsotheir possible sideeffects.“You canlearn a lot, as indeed we do, harsh simulations andlaboratory studieswithout carryingexperimentson the street.But overall, I think we need to developbothtogether,” says Forster.

Another fruitofSPICEwas the demonstratedneed to regulategeoengineering. Evenat a small scale,these experimentscan alterrainfall patternsandwinds. It is not a secret that the State of California has been submitted to massive geoengineering manipulation which is why it has been under drought conditions for such a long time.

As clarified by theBritish scientist,“it is difficult to create a legal frameworkif you don’t knowwhat you’reregulatingand whatyou‘re protecting. Therefore, we needto have some ideaof the technology.But on the otherhand,it would be unethical to startregardless of the goodsupervisory practices andgovernance toestablishlarge-scaleexperiments,” he adds. Mr. Forster is apparently ignorant about the large scale experimentation that has been going on for decades.

“The idea of conducting experimentsto alteratmospheric processesis understandablycontroversial, butour Scopex experiment isonly a proposal,” says one ofits promoters, DavidKeith. Its aimis to be in placein 2017but, as he says,“it can only go forwardif public fundingis substantial, with a formal approval process anda study ofindependentrisks,” he adds in a note. These climate terrorists want humanity to pay for their own demise by financing the poisoning of the air, water and soil as a solution to non-existent global warming.

“A project like this would costabout 1.5%of world GDP,” he adds. To get an idea, that would be30 timesthedollars invested in theApollo programthatput a manon the moon.Effectiveness, cost and governance are theobstacles faced by geoengineering. That is why more global leaders are now calling for a Global Green Government that would be able to implement the systematic poisoning of humanity to a scale that we have never seen before.

Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.

Dr. Tim Ball joined Dave Hodges, the host of the Common Sense Show, and debunked Al Gore’s version of climate change and exposed the true agenda. We also discuss pole shifts, ice ages and species extinctions.

Dave Hodges is the host of the popular weekly talk show, The Common Sense Show, which airs on Sunday nights from 9pm – Midnight (central) on the Republic Broadcasting Network and its 29 affiliate stations. Dave also hosts a website (www.thecommonsenseshow.com) in which he writes daily articles on the geopolitical state of affairs both nationally and internationally. The theme of Dave’s show and website centers around exposing the corruption and treason which has invaded the presidency and Congress as well as their corporate and banking benefactors. Dave is an award winning psychology, sociology, statistics and research professor. He is also a former college basketball coach who retired as the winningest coach in his college’s history. A mental health therapist by training, Dave brings a broad based perspective in his fight against the corrupt central banking cartels which have hijacked the US government. Dave and his wife, Nora have one son and they presently reside in rural Arizona approximately 25 miles north of the greater Phoenix area. Dave was drawn to the fight for freedom when the globalist central banking forces, led by Senator John McCain, attempted to seize his home and property and that of 300 of his neighbors, without one dime being offered in compensation. This attempted public theft of private property was conducted for the purpose of securing cheap land in which the globalists intended on putting in an international highway through their area known as the Canamex Corridor. Dave’s community appointed him the spokesperson and eventually his community won their fight against the bankers and their front man, Senator McCain. This event launched Dave’s career as a broadcaster and an investigative journalist. Dave’s website presently enjoys over a half a million visitors every month.

With so many corporations polluting our environment, poisoning our food and corrupting our democracy, it’s tough to single out “the worst.” But this year, we’re asking you to elect one of the biggest bee-killers in the world, Bayer CropScience, into the Corporate Hall of Shame.

We think it’s about time consumers hold Bayer accountable for not only manufacturing the pesticides that kill bees, but for creating a public relations campaign aimed at blaming everything but the company’s pesticides for the mass die-off of pollinators.

By now, we all know that neonicotinoids are the primary culprit in Colony Collapse Disorder. We also know who stands to profit the most from selling neonics—Bayer CropScience is the world’s number one seller of neonics, with annual sales of over $1 billion.

To hear Bayer tell it, the neonic-maker is the honeybee’s best friend. Instead of taking responsibility for poisoning pollinators, Bayer has launched a very expensive public relations campaign, outlined in this report by the Friends of the Earth. The campaign is aimed at shifting the blame to global warming. Or maybe mites.

Bayer has even established the bogus Bayer Bee Care Center in a disingenuous public relations move aimed at convincing consumers that the company is dedicated to protecting bees.

Bayer should be ashamed. It isn’t, of course. So it’s up to us to shame the world’s leading bee-killer.

Have you heard of Boyan Slat and his plan to clean up the oceans? There’s a good chance you have because his initial story went viral after he did a TEDx talk about how we could clean up the world’s oceans using his device.

We first covered this story back in 2013 and at the time many people were talking about the huge potential his clean up array had in ridding the ocean of plastic. As stated by Boyan himself:

“One of the problems with preventive work is that there isn’t any imagery of these ‘garbage patches’, because the debris is dispersed over millions of square kilometres. By placing our arrays however, it will accumulate along the booms, making it suddenly possible to actually visualize the oceanic garbage patches. We need to stress the importance of recycling, and reducing our consumption of plastic packaging.”

Wise words from a truly innovative mind. After his impressive invention, Boyan decided to found The Ocean Cleanup Foundation, a non-profit organization responsible for the development of his proposed technologies. If brought into fruition, his solution could save hundreds of thousands of aquatic animals annually, reduce pollutants (including PCB and DDT) from building up in the food chain and even improve human health given the fact harmful plastic has been found in humans after being in the ocean.

Many Said It Would Fail

Like with any great invention, many said it would fail and many even came after us for posting such a “ludicrous idea.” But as its been shown time and time again, ‘negative’ voices on the internet aren’t always best to listen to and I’m glad Boyan made that choice.

People claimed the problem would be too big to solve. We should only focus on land. His device wouldn’t be feasible. A lot of difficult things to face for a young person with an idea. For some this may have sidelined their efforts for good, but he kept going.

He ended up raising $2.1 million dollars to help get his project going and by June of 2014 he was publishing his astounding results.

“The report’s main conclusion – that The Ocean Cleanup Array is likely feasible and financially viable method to cleanup nearly half the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in 10 years – remains unchanged.

“There’s obviously a lot more work to do – we estimate the technology should be ready for full-scale implementation in three to four years’ time. Now that we are confident the first phase has produced a solid basis, we can now close off the feasibility study, and fully focus on initiating the Pilot Phase,” Boyan said.[1]

A Problem Is Never Too Big

I believe in many cases we only limit ourselves by the confines we allow our minds to put on something. I can promise you as an entrepreneur myself, people will try and cut you down from the very first day you mention your idea, but if you feel strongly or passionately about something, go for it. Even if you meet challenges that cause your journey to change, I can guarantee you will have learned a lot along the way. Sometimes it’s not always about the end result but instead, the journey.

Boyan is an inspiration in this case as well. He has met the challenges and ridicules of others and went forth anyway. There are many challenges in our world that need addressing and each can be addressed. If you have the inspiration to tackle one, go for it, no matter how tough it may seem.

Joe Martino

I created Collective-Evolution 5 years ago and have been heavily at it since. I love inspiring others to find joy and make changes in their lives. Hands down the only other thing I am this passionate about is baseball.

LIMA – No real science backs the notion that humans are the main cause of global warming. In fact, this reality is one of the reasons why the term global warming has been changed twice since its inception. For a few years, we’ve heard the mainstream media call it climate change, as if changes in the Earth’s climate are not normal and natural. Then came the term, climate disturbance, the latest in a list of names that intends to distract people from the science of climate change to focus them on how bad humans are to the planet and how this fact requires that the planet be depopulated massively.

It seems that the leaders of the fake environmental movement, the proponents of cutting CO2 emissions as a way to reduce global warming and mitigate the supposed consequences they attach to it, always talk about cutting down emissions globally as if they do not have to reduce their footprint themselves. For example, the first climate meeting in Rio in 1992 had 1,000 delegates participating in the discussions. Last week in Lima, there were 11,000 people from almost every single country on the planet.

The climate talks are a failure for two main reasons: Firstly, climate science as it is presented on the main stream is pseudo-science. If it wasn’t all the scientific community would be undoubtedly on board. Second, scientists and delegates are not the ones discussing what needs to be done, corporations are. One of the reasons why very little agreement is achieved every time there is a new climate meeting is because more delegates from different countries continue to realize that global warming is a hoax and that the so-called “science” that backs it up does not have anything scientific behind it.

The question is, if with every new climate meeting less is accomplished, why bother having these meetings? The leaders of the corporate world who are behind the global warming hoax understand that in order to have the masses of people on board, they need to make them feel part of it, so they call on national representatives to appear on climate meetings to “work together” on policies that have already been decided on. This is more easily understood if you live in North America, where local and regional meetings on global warming and Agenda 21 are held everywhere to make people feel included.

Neither the latestUN summits nor the previous ones are effective in moving forward on curbing CO2 emissions – assuming CO2 is a threat for real. ThebalanceofLimahas been especiallypainful. After the US and China announced the signing of a new emissions deal, it appeared thatthe magic key to open the door of paralysis would finally be opened, but it was not. Hopes fell apartlike sugar cubes in the last few hours wherethe ambitious objectives, once again, vanished. All that delegates at the latest Lima COP20 Climate Talks have to show for is hope that the next meeting in 2015 will render anything more significant than what they accomplished this year.

The abject failure of the climate talks has some people suggesting that the format of the event should be changed. Perhaps, some say, there are too many people involved. Yvode Boer, Executive Director of theClimate Change Conventionof the UN,said theproblemis thattheUN negotiatorshave no authority. Listen carefully here. The UN wants more power, enough power to ignore the representatives of the world nations so it can decide whatever its corporate sponsors want to adopt as “climate policy”.“If the leaders of the G-20 metand said,‘Gentlemen, let’s do this,’this whole debatewould be overin 30 minutes,” he told Reuters. Do you understand it now?

The failure to reach an agreement is a two prong issue. Firstly, it means there is a strong opposition from developing countries to surrender their right to have better living conditions, and, second, the United Nations can claim it does not have enough power to decide so countries vote to provide that power to decide unilaterally. Things would not change much if such power were awarded, after all, the G20 nations already decide what economic and social policies are implemented worldwide.

What could be wrong with giving the G20 more power when it comes to climate policy? It would only mean the leaders of the “free world” would be able to codify the policies they have already implemented – by stealth for a long time – to de-industrialize the West while keeping developing nations poor. This along with their depopulation policies would result inthe much desiredgoal to massively reduce the planet’s population by as much as 90%.

In Lima many world delegations already knew about this, so hostilitiesresumedwhen their representatives made their voices heardto demandless responsibilityin actionagainst global warming. DeBoerproposed to correcterrorsahead of the summitin Paris 2015, and tried to “identify the cornerstonesof workto do” and that “a technical process needs to unfold as opposed to a political one.” The problem is that the COP20 meetings are filled with politicians and representatives from the global industry, which makes it impossible to achieve technical goals. DeBoer‘s hope is that Parismarksa turning pointafter nearly twodecades ofclimate diplomacywithpoor results since Kyoto was adopted in1997.

The covenant ofLimais poorbecause countriesareonlyinvited(butnot required) to submit theirplans for reducinggreenhouse gases. This is so, because as explained earlier, the actual policies that corporate leaders seek to approve have already been written. All that they want is developing countries to sign on the dotted line and comply with their desires.

TeresaRibera, former Secretary ofState for Climate Change, notes, however, that the solution must bepolitical negotiationsat the UN. Mrs. Ribera, much like former and current political leaders thinks that besides being a forum, the UN should be awarded the power to force policy on countries much as it does already on so-called conservation of natural resources. (See Agenda 21 for details). She says that along with the political side, there must be a technical one, the complex and mixed messages require “policyresponses bypoliticians”, as opposed to science based decisions.

She proposes the descentralization of negotiations so that the “consensus” required bythe UN does notparalyzecountriespoised to achieve more ambitious targetsto limitgreenhousegases. However, her proposal to achieve this goal is filled with more red tape. She wants to create a “club of the 50fastestcountries” so that the processcannot broken. By the way, Mrs. Ribera is the director of the Institute forDurableDevelopment andInternational Relations, a French think tank that works under the socialist French government.

Ribera finds it curious that developing countries do not demand more from industrialized countries such as China, for example. The reason for this is that China, Russia, the United States and some European nations -either through their government or their corporations – finance investmentsand developcollaborative projects inthese countries, so a “call to action” from third world nations would mean a considerable reduction in such an investment.

Someobserversthought that the Limatalks were so weakthat theresult shows that themultilateralUN processis not the bestfor climate action. They are absolutely correct. Each nation should independently establish its own environmental goals as opposed to having a global bureaucracy telling them what they must do while the largest polluters in the planet buy their way through policy and law by purchasing carbon credits that encourage more pollution of the environment.

“We continuenegotiating totake adopt vague agreementsonly to savethe multilateral system, so that it gives governments some legitimacy on the issue, but that can no longer continue,“explained LlorençSerrano, former environment secretaryof CCOO,when questionedabout this issue. JoséManuelEntrecanales, president of Acciona, said referringto the poorresults achieved inDurban, South Africa,in 2011,that “the lack of agreement on climatechange shows that politicians do not havea strong mandate fromtheir constituents. The fault is ours,” he said.

The result isthat the United Nationsconsiders thatit is already clearthat the promisesof actionto limit warming tobe talked about in Paris inDecember 2015are belowthegoal of preventinga temperature riseof2 degreesabove the preindustrialera.

“We’ll have to work a lot,” said French ForeignMinisterLaurentFabiusofthe task aheadfor Paris.

Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.

Dry cracked earth is visible on the banks of Shasta Lake at Holiday Harbor on August 30, 2014 in Lakehead, California. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/AFP)

The state of California is going through the worst drought in at least 1,200 years, the US scientist said after analyzing tree rings.

It’s now drier in California than during the 1930s dustbowl and the historic droughts of the 1970s and 1980s, a study published by the American Geophysical Union said.

The scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and the University of Minnesota used tree rings to reconstruct the Golden State’s temperature and precipitation history back to 800 A.D., Washington Post reports.

The method they applied was simple and vivid, with tighter rings on California’s oldest trees meaning dryer years.

A car sits in dried and cracked earth of what was the bottom of the Almaden Reservoir on January 28, 2014 in San Jose, California. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/AFP)

During the 1,200-year period, the researchers identified 66 droughts, which lasted between three to nine years.

But none of them were as bad as the drought that started in California in 2012 and still far from coming to an end.

Moreover, the trees revealed that 2014 turned out to be the worst single drought year in the surveyed period.

The current dry season was caused not only by low below-average precipitation, but also by record-breaking heat, which intensified the drought by around 36 per cent, the scientists said.

According to US drought Monitor, more than 50 per cent of California’s territory remained in “exceptional drought” during the week, with the whole state being in drought.

Water shortages as well as crop and pasture losses may cost the state 2.2 billion this year, with 17,100 jobs lost and 428,000 acres of land left unplanted, Bloomberg reports.

More than a year’s supply of water has gone missing in the state’s reservoirs, with even record rains, falling in California this week being unable to seriously affect the situation.

The COP20, sponsored by the United Nations and transnational corporations, has the biggest carbon footprint ever.

LIMA – You would think that the Lima Climate Talks would be discussions among scientists and policy makers, that they would be candid conversations about how to improve energy usage and significantly reduce environmental pollution.

Well, that will have to be left for another climate talk, or perhaps another era in human history.

Even though Big Oil is one of the most significant polluters worldwide – ask Exxon and BP – representatives from the most powerful energy companies are and have been at every environmental gathering since Rio 1992.

You are probably asking yourself what in the world are representatives from the most dangerous industry in the world, one that rivals geo-engineering and GMO polluters, at the Climate Talks in Peru.

Is it even possible to negotiate ways to have a cleaner planet when the polluters, those who only seek profit for their shareholders and themselves are at the negotiating table?

For starters, these guys are not there to negotiate, but to take care of their interests.

Oil is, and will be the main source of energy for industries the globe over for a while, but these guys should not be able to participate in discussing how to have a cleaner planet.

They are not interested in a cleaner planet. If they were, they would have not caused so much damage to the environment as they have done. If they were really interested in a cleaner planet, they would be investing as much money as they pile up to oppose the emergence of new technologies and real environmental campaigns – not fake global warming alarmism.

Now, it is important to understand why they are there.

The reason is, they finance the fake environmental movement. That’s right. Those people asking for a significant cut in CO2 emissions and who blame humans for global warming are in bed with BP, Shell, Exxon and Chevron, among others. Environmentalism is a big business, and it is funded and directed by the heads of industry who control the most important monopolies.

“Official lore from the environmental movement’s publications asserts that the movement emerged from the grass roots. The truth, however, is that funding and policy lines comes from the most prestigious institutions of the Eastern Liberal Establishment, centered around the New York Council on Foreign Relations, and including the Trilateral commission, the Aspen Institute, and a host of private family foundations.” report Rogelio A. Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer in chapter 10 of their book The Holes in the Ozone Scare: The Scientific Evidence That the Sky Isn’t Falling.

Surprised? Don’t be! That is the nature of corporate monopoly and bureaucracy.

But there is more. According to the authors, the current environmentalist movement, to which millions of people subscribe simply because they do not know what else to do, has very clear intentions for the present and the future of the western world. Unfortunately, those intentions are not the best for humanity. “This network of foundations created environmentalism, moving it from a radical fringe movement into a mass movement to support the institutionalization of antiscience, no-growth policies at all levels of government and public life. As prescribed in the Council on Foreign Relations 1980s Project book series, environmentalism has been used against America’s economy, against such targets as high-technology agriculture and the nuclear power industry. This movement is fundamentally a green pagan religion in its outlook.”

As people at the Climate Talks in Lima and previous events sponsored by the United Nations have seen, the motto used by the corporate-led environmentalist movement – “saving the Earth” – while disguising itself as “non- for profits” that seek to represent the “public interest”, is all a sham, indeed.

Each and every environmental coalition is made up of thousands of little environmental groups, which are directly or indirectly financed by monies from the UN or big corporations. How would they manage to grab billions of dollars a year in funding if it wasn’t for the large contributions from corporate interests?

Take for example the Global Tomorrow Coalition, which is composed by over 100 environmental and population-control groups. None of these groups have a budget that is lower than 3 million dollars a year.

Research compiled by Maduro and Schauerhammer, shows that as far back as the 1980s, 35 foundations were responsible for heavily investing and literally financing the operations of two powerful so-called environmental groups: The Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Back in the early 1990s, available public sources showed that the total revenues of the environmentalist movement were more than $8.5 billion per year. How much do you think their budget is today?

Put simply, the environmental movement is owned by a club of billionaires and their tax-free foundations, who, through their financial contributions, control the Environmental Movement to a point where even government agencies seem unable to do their job independently.

In the summer of 2014, a report released by the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, confirmed the notion that establishment organizations such as the WWF and to a great extent Greenpeace, EarthJustice, the US National Wildlife Federation, the Nature’s Conservancy, the Sierra Club Foundation and the Union of Concerned Scientists received almost 8 billion dollars from these groups.

While skeptics of the environmentalist movement are labeled as puppets of “big oil”, those who are indeed controlled by the oil industry, the UN and tax-exempted foundations owned by a few global corporate leaders fill their pockets with tons of cash. The baseless accusations pinned on anyone who opposes the anthropogenic warming hoax is nothing more than a projection of their own greed.

While climate alarmists appeal to the large dumbed-down masses so they demand change from their political leaders, the environmentalists are getting paid off to push the fake “save the Earth” agenda movement whose only goal is to limit development, keep people poor in third world nations and to drastically reduce populations.

As Chris Williams, from Climate & Capitalism puts it, the current wave of fake environmentalists are just a group of great tacticians and great strategists. They are great with ” the science and art of using a fighting force to the best advantage”, while conducting a large-scale campaign against the very same masses of people who they have recruited to put pressure on political leaders so they pass legislation that favours large transnational corporations.

If you did not understand it before, now you know why ‘big oil’ and other dominant corporations are at the ‘negotiating table’ in Lima, Peru. Every single document signed in past climate meetings had the seal of approval of those corporations. If it did not, it would have not been accepted. They own the environmentalist movement. No decisions that favors the planet will be made until these people are kicked out the room and that is never going to happen unless environmental organizations, especially the larger ones, stop accepting funds from corporate donors and philanthropic tax-free foundations.

Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.

Is payment for breathing next? They arguethat in this wayit would be possibleto set a limitfor eachnation.

LIMA: As the amount of people who see no threat from global warming grows almost at the same rate as ice sheets in the poles, there are still those who ignore science and intend to drive their political interests above all else.

This week, climate alarmists meeting in Lima, Peru, have proposed to limit the amount of CO2 that each person emits as a way to abruptly curb how much CO2 each nation is allowed to release into the atmosphere.

The proposal has many people thinking whether the next step in the climate alarmism campaign will be a proposal to establish a ‘toll’ that would charge people for breathing.

For many years, politicians and bureaucrats have considered taxing people by the amount of miles they drive and even taxing farmers for the amount of flatulence their farm animals release into the air, so what is stopping the same people from proposing imposing a tax on breathing?

According to the Minister for Environmental Affairs of Costa Rica, Édgar Gutiérrez, the head of the delegation that is circulating the proposal to impose a limit on personal emissions, the plan has been discussed “since the Earth Summitin Rio deJaneiroin 1992, but it has not been possible for populations to change theirconsumption. If we can agree on atargetthat affects theindividual,then it will the person’s responsibility to limit his or her emission to two tonsof carbon per year,” Gutierrez said.

The kind of draconian measures such as the one presented by Costa Rica are not new. In fact, they are abundant though intelligently disguised as policies that ‘make sense’ in official UN documents such as Agenda 21 and the 1992 UN Biodiversity Assessment which was agreed upon during the Rio meeting.

Climate alarmism contrasts with global perception

In contrast to the ongoing campaign that blames all of humanity for the debunked notion of we are all responsible for global warming, while attempting to impose limits to human progress, especially in developing nations, a new globally conducted survey sponsored by the United Nations, the Overseas Development Institute andIpsos Moripublished this week, once again shows that global warming or climate change, as climate alarmists like to call it, is of no concern for most of the 6.5 million people who participated in the poll.

“MY World is a United Nations global survey for citizens. Working with partners, we aim to capture people’s voices, priorities and views, so world leaders can be informed as they begin the process of defining the next set of global goals to end poverty,” explains the website that contains the results of the survey. Not surprisingly, climate change appears dead last on a list of 16 issues that were presented as priorities to those who participated in the poll.

Among the most concerning issues at the top of the result are education, healthcare, jobs, honesty in government and food availability. In total, 4,412,589 people cited education as the main concern, while 3,721,392 responded that healthcare was the most pressing issue. Only 1,354,059 people mentioned climate change as an important issue.

One important detail obtained from the survey is that from the 6,657,495 million people from around the world who participated in the survey, almost 4 million are between the ages of 16 and 30. This is particularly important because those people are the ones who will soon inherit the destiny of humanity in each of their corners of the world, and if they are already aware that the threat of global warming is a hoax and concentrate their efforts in real, more pressing issues, perhaps humanity does have a chance for a better future.

The number of women and men who participated in the survey was virtually 50-50, with 3,398,578 men and 3,200,527 women in total.

It is also important to point out that almost 3 million people who participated in the survey held a level of education above high school and many of them went into higher education. This means that people who are more concerned with education, healthcare, jobs and other real issues are fairly well educated to take over the destiny of humanity into their hands.

Contrast between fabricated science and reality

Not only are people more aware that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, but reality also shows otherwise.

One of the pinnacle arguments offered by the so-called scientific community that alerted us about the dire consequences of not taxing us all to ‘fix’ climate change was that ocean levels would rise to swallow whole coastal areas. However, a recent large snow storms in the northern hemisphere have chilled their argument.

As pointed out by Somehow Reasonable, “Record setting cold and snow, not global warming, became the norm in November 2014.”

“For the U.S. as a whole, Rutgers University Global Snow Lab reports, North America snow cover reached a record extent for mid-November (15.35 million square kilometers), crushing the old record from 1985 by over 2 million square kilometers,” reports H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., who is the managing editor of Environment & Climate News and a research fellow for environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute.

Today, Britons are being warned about the coming ‘Weather Bomb’. “The Met Office has issued a number of amber and yellow weather warnings as the cold front sweeps in, bringing winds of up to 80mph,” reports Yahoo News.

A fact that does remain a constant in the climate alarmism movement is the lack of mention, both in documents and during official events such as the COP20 now being held in Peru, is the consequences that weather modification has had in climate patterns. There is no mention of chemtrails, solar radiation management and other programs that have been running for decades and which are responsible for ‘unexplainable’ phenomena such as the continuous mass drought in the state of California.

According to a World Meteorological Organization report, 42 nations have active weather modification programs and many other countries are developing new geo-engineering programs themselves. Despite abundant documentation that show patents and active programs, the climate alarmists are still trying to scare the population with made-up science, as supposed to warning the world about the impending threats generated by geo-engineering programs.

Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.

Butterflies eating food collected from cities around the Fukushima nuclear meltdown site showed higher rates of death and disease, according to a study published in the open access journal BMC Evolutionary Biology.

Researchers fed groups of pale blue grass butterflies (Zizeeria maha) leaves from six different areas at varying distance from the disaster site, and then investigated the effects on the next generation. Feeding offspring the same contaminated leaves as their parents magnified the effects of the radiation. But offspring fed uncontaminated leaves were mostly like normal butterflies, and the authors say this shows that decontaminating the food source can save the next generation.

The 2011 meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant released substantial amounts of radiation into the surrounding area. Humans were evacuated, and no significant health effects have been reported, but the scientists from the University of the Rukyus, Okinawa, Japan, are studying the impact on the area’s wildlife.

In a previous study, the group suggested that eating leaves with high levels of radiation seriously affected the pale grass blue butterfly. Their new study investigated the effect of eating leaves with much lower levels of radiation, which had been collected in 2012, a year after the disaster, from six areas that were 59km to 1760km from the site.

Their study showed that even in these comparatively low levels of radiation, there was an observable difference in the butterflies’ lifespan, depending on the dose of caesium radiation in their food, which ranged from 0.2 to 161bq/kg. For comparison, leaves collected in the months after the disaster around 20km from the site had radiation in the thousands of Bq/kg. Butterflies fed leaves with higher caesium radiation doses were also smaller and some had morphological abnormalities such as unusually shaped wings.

Professor Joji Otaki, University of Rukyus, says: “Wildlife has probably been damaged even at relatively low doses of radiation, and our research showed that sensitivity varies among individuals within a species.”

In the second part of the experiment, the researchers looked at the next generation of butterflies. These were split into groups fed an uncontaminated diet, and those fed the same diets as their parents.

The offspring fed an uncontaminated diet had a similar lifespan, irrespective of the amount of radiation their parents had been exposed to. The only effect seemed to be that those whose parents had been exposed to higher caesium diets had smaller forewings. But those fed the same contaminated diet as their parents showed magnified effects.

The authors say that this shows that the effects of eating contaminated food can be significant, and that they can be passed on, but are minimized if the next generation have an unaffected diet.

Professor Otaki says: “Our study demonstrated that eating contaminated foods could cause serious negative effects on organisms. Such negative effects may be passed down the generations. On the bright side, eating non-contaminated food improves the negative effects, even in the next generation.”

The existence of toxic chemicals in our environment and especially in our food must be of grave concern to all. However, the fourth article of the Chemical Reality series is going to focus on a toxic substance that affects men in particular. Its name is Atrazine. It is produced by Big Chem, more especifically, Syngenta.

If you have never heard about atrazine and how it degrades human health and the environment, it is time to pay attention, because this chemical is as bad as Bisphenol A and Dioxins, the two compounds I wrote about in the two previous articles.

Atrazine is such a poisonous chemical that its producer has paid $105 million to settle one single lawsuit that alleged the toxicity of atrazine endangered the environment by contaminating human water supplies. The money paid by Syngenta was used to treat at 1000 contaminated water systems polluted by atrazine.

Let’s understand what exactly atrazine is and how this chemical is indeed poisoning us all.

Atrazine is a herbicide used to fight the growth of broadleaf weeds in crops. It is used in many if not all crops that are produced in large amounts ( as corn, soy, sugarcane and others) in order to increase yields such It is also used on grass such as home lawns, stadiums and golf courses. Atrazine’s most significant threat concerns its ability to contaminate ground water as it filters through the soil into subterranean water reserves. But a lot of it also remains on the soil, grass and crops we use as food. Even after sliding down into the soil, atrazine residue remains on the grass and plants, which are later eaten by gracing animals.

The levels of atrazine in the environment have increased everywhere but in those places that have banned the use of the pesticide/herbicide. As you may have already guessed, the United States is the country with the heaviest use of atrazine and Europe is the place where the chemical has been widely prohibited due to its toxicity.

Since defending the indefensible is expensive, Syngenta and other chemical companies do not like it when someone discovers that the chemicals they produce are harmful, because that means they would need to pull it out of the market, which in turn causes the companies to lose millions of dollars in profits. The modus operandi of companies like Syngenta is to persecute whistleblowers to make them shut up. That is the case of Tyrone Hayes, a scientist who spent fifteen years studying atrazine. The result of his research demonstrated that this herbicide is indeed a harmful, toxic chemical.

After working for Syngenta in the study of atrazine, Hayes left his job and decided to work independently and that is when he began to be harassed by Syngenta. As reported by The New Yorker, “Syngenta representatives were following him to conferences around the world. He worried that the company was orchestrating a campaign to destroy his reputation.” Hayes’ work prompted 23 American cities to sue Syngenta for hiding atrazine’s threat to ground water reserves. After the lawsuit was settled by Syngenta, hundreds of memos, notes, and e-mails from the company were made public only to confirm what Hayes had discovered throughout most of his career. “Tyrone’s work gave us the scientific basis for the lawsuit,” said Stephen Tillery, the attorney who took on Syngenta in court.

Why is Atrazine so dangerous?

The reason why Syngenta persecutes people like Hayes, who only want to demonstrate the danger that this chemical poses to humans, animals and plants is atrazine’s pervasiveness. As the two previous chemicals do, atrazine is an endocrine disruptor, which means it has the capacity to negatively affect the hormonal balance of humans and animals. Because water is the main source of life on this planet, it is no surprise that atrazine’s toxicity is of such a concern to many people. Let’s remember that the human body is said to be 65% water.

Back in 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States, said that the risks associated with atrazine residues in water “posed a reasonable certainty of no harm”. Later in 2007 the EPA said that atrazine did not negatively affect sexual development in amphibians and that it was not necessary to conduct further testing. So why all the noise about atrazine? Mostly because it is the second most widely used herbicide after Monsanto’s glyphosate and also because despite the EPA’s assurances that this chemicals is safe, multiple studies have found that the opposite is true.

The consequences of atrazine in humans and animals are related to the endocrine system where it causes hormonal imbalance. Its pervasiveness relies on the fact that atrazine remains on soil for months, which allows it to get to underground water reservoirs. For this reason, atrazine was banned in Europe in 2004.

As in the case of BPA and dioxins, atrazine causes damage on unborn children during pregnancy, disturbs natural and normal sexual development, affects pubertal development and others.

The dangers of atrazine are extended to animals and plants, where similar results have been observed. Frogs and fish are some of the most harmed species. Frogs often suffer from demasculinization and even low doses of atrazine cause frogs to turn into hermaphrodites. According to results obtained by Tyrone Hayes, atrazine lowers decreases testosterone to levels that are inferior to those found in female frogs. The only studies that have not found any threat from the use of atrazine, have been those financed by Syngenta and conducted by government agencies.

“Atrazine demasculinizes male gonads producing testicular lesions associated with reduced germ cell numbers in teleost fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, and induces partial and/or complete feminization in fish, amphibians, and reptiles. These effects are strong (statistically significant), consistent across vertebrate classes, and specific Reductions in androgen levels and the induction of estrogen synthesis – demonstrated in fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals – represent plausible and coherent mechanisms that explain these effects. Biological gradients are observed in several of the cited studies, although threshold doses and patterns vary among species.”

How did Hayes come up with this conclusion?

“Plausible, coherent mechanisms are available to explain gonadal demasculinization and feminization. Atrazine exposure significantly reduces synthesis, secretion and circulating levels of androgens across vertebrate classes including fish [38,59], amphibians [26,39], reptiles [40], and mammals [24,60] with lesser effects in birds [61]. Androgen production is critical for germ cell differentiation, development and maturation. Thus, limiting androgen production and availability provides a plausible mechanism to explain the demasculinization of gonads in exposed males.”

A report published on the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, explains that atrazine induces castration in male African clawed frogs. “atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide contaminant of ground, surface, and drinking water. Atrazine is also a potent endocrine disruptor that is active at low, ecologically relevant concentrations.” According to PNAS, previous studies show that when exposed to atrazine, males were chemically castrated and completely feminized as adults.

In animal studies, at least 10% of subjects developed functional females organs, mated with males to later produce viable eggs. Apparently, atrazine causes males to suffer from “depressed testosterone”, demasculinized/feminized laryngeal development, suppressed mating behavior, reduced spermatogenesis, and decreased fertility. But the results of studies done with atrazine are not only limited to amphibians. The same results seen in them were observed in other vertebrate classes. If atrazine is likely to cause a decline in amphibian population worldwide, due to its ability to disrupt endocrine function, it is expected to have the same result in other forms of life, including humans.

The heavy use of atrazine and other poisonous chemicals in agriculture is one good reason to stop consuming processed industrialized products. An Agugust 2010 study whose details are published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, “found that the incidence of prostate inflammation went from 48 percent in the control group to 81 percent in the male offspring who were exposed to a mixture of atrazine and its breakdown products prenatally.” The study was led by Suzanne Fenton, Ph.D., and Jason Stanko, Ph.D., from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which is part of the National Institutes of Health.

“We didn’t expect to see these kinds of effects at such low levels,” Fenton said. “We hope that this information will be useful to the EPA as it completes its risk assessment of atrazine,” said Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., director of the NIEHS and National Toxicology Program.

So let’s review. When it comes to atrazine’s negative effects on reproduction, studies have shown that this chemical “reduces the ability to reproduce successfully. Regarding atrazine’s mutagenicity, studies have found that there is a significant increase in the percentage of chromosomal damage in the blood cells of workers in an atrazine production plant. On carcinogenicity, in human evaluations, studies found a higher incidence of breast cancer and ovarian cancers and that the risk of breast cancer was higher in places with “medium and high levels of triazine exposure” than it was at low exposures. According to the Pesticide Action Network of the United Kingdom, the general conclusion on atrazine, is that “it is a pesticide of major concern for a number of reasons including possible negative health effects, effects on aquatic organisms, levels in drinking water and the development of resistance. Whilst it is becoming less widely used, the effects of its long-term persistence may still cause health and environmental problems in the future.”

As I’ve said in the previous three articles, it is not a bad idea to act in a safe, proactive way. As explained in previous cases, the best way to avoid getting poisoned by atrazine or any other chemical is to eliminate processed foods from our diets. A second step is to conduct a detoxification of the body. A third step is to change our diets to eat food that we can prove has been cultivated without any kind of chemicals and on a soil that has never been sprayed with pesticides, herbicides or that have been planted with genetically engineered organisms.

Men, you have been warned.

Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.

Did you know that the number of big earthquakes during the first three months of 2014 was more than double the yearly average of what we have experienced since 1979? And did you know that the number of earthquakes in the central and eastern U.S. has quintupled in recent years? If you do not believe this, just keep reading. We live at a time when earthquakes are increasing in frequency and severity. And we are starting to see some very unusual activity in places that have been quiet for a very long time. For example, large holes are starting to mysteriously appear in Indiana near the New Madrid fault zone. And a giant crack in the ground nearly a kilometer long has appeared in northern Mexico. Could these be indications that even greater earthquake activity is on the way?

Most Americans don’t realize that the greatest earthquakes in U.S. history happened along the New Madrid fault zone. Back during the early part of the 19th century, a series of immensely powerful earthquakes rattled the entire eastern half of the nation. Documents that we have from that era say that those earthquakes were so powerful that they were felt more than 1,000 miles away. And there are many that believe that if we had a similar earthquake today that the damage caused would almost be incalculable.

That is why what has been happening in Indiana is so alarming. According to reports, half a dozen mystery holes have been discovered on Mount Baldy…

More than a year after a 6-year-old boy was almost buried alive in a popular sand dune, more holes are appearing and scientists still aren’t sure why. The 126 foot sand dune, called Mount Baldy, in Indiana, remains closed as new potentially dangerous holes are appearing. Three geologists arrived last week with high tech equipment in the hope of using radio waves and core samples to see if they can determine what’s causing the holes. Their plan? To eventually build a three dimensional map of the dune to try and see it’s internal structure.

You can view a video news report about these mysterious holes right here…

So what should we think about all of this?

Well it could be something or it could be nothing.

But any weird activity near the New Madrid fault always gets my attention. This fault is so dangerous that it could literally change the shape of the country overnight. For much more on how dangerous the New Madrid fault is, just check out this video.

Most Americans never even give the New Madrid fault a second thought, but the federal government considered it important enough to hold a major five day simulation known as “National Level Exercise 11″ just a few years ago…

In May, the federal government simulated an earthquake so massive, it killed 100,000 Midwesterners instantly, and forced more than 7 million people out of their homes. At the time, National Level Exercise 11 went largely unnoticed; the scenario seemed too far-fetched — states like Illinois and Missouri are in the middle of a tectonic plate, not at the edge of one. A major quake happens there once every several generations.

…

National Level Exercise 11, or NLE 11, was, in essence, a replay of a disaster that happened 200 years earlier. On Dec. 16, 1811, a magnitude 7.7 earthquake hit the New Madrid fault line, which lies on the border region of Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi. It’s by far the largest earthquake ever to strike the United States east of the Rockies. Up to 129,000 square kilometers [50,000 square miles] were hit with “raised or sunken lands, fissures, sinks, sand blows, and large landslides,” according to the U.S. Geological Service. “Huge waves on the Mississippi River overwhelmed many boats and washed others high onto the shore. High banks caved and collapsed into the river; sand bars and points of islands gave way; whole islands disappeared.” People as far away as New York City were awakened by the shaking.

More quakes, of a similar size, followed. But the loss of life was minimal: Not too many people lived in the area at the time. Today, there are more than 15 million people living in the quake zone. If a similar quake hit, “7.2 million people could be displaced, with 2 million seeking temporary shelter” in the first three days, FEMA Associate Adminsitrator William Carwile told a Congressional panel in 2010. “Direct economic losses for the eight states could total nearly $300 billion, while indirect losses at least twice that amount.”

Walmart Stores Inc., with its huge network of stores and facilities, has also taken note. “We are seeing increased earthquake activity in the central U.S. That is an area we are focusing on even more,” said Mark Cooper, senior director of emergency management at Walmart, in an interview. He explained that Walmart takes an “all-hazard” approach to emergency preparedness, but focuses on specific risks in areas of the country where those risks are particularly relevant, such as hurricanes in Louisiana. “A few weeks ago, we participated in an exercise to prepare for an earthquake on the New Madrid fault line,” he said.

But the New Madrid fault zone is certainly not the only area to be keeping an eye on.

Down in north Mexico, a giant crack in the ground about a kilometer long has recently appeared. It is estimated to be approximately 16 feet across and 8 feet deep. You can view some stunning aerial footage of this giant crack in the Earth right here…

Some believe that an earthquake along the San Andreas Fault may be to blame for this giant fissure.

Others believe that it is being caused by an underground stream.

While footage of giant cracks in the Earth such as you have just seen can be quite spectacular, what is far more alarming to me personally are the cold, hard earthquake numbers.

For example, as I mentioned above, the number of big earthquakes that we have seen this year has been far higher than usual. The following is from a recent CBS News report…

If you think there have been more earthquakes than usual this year, you’re right. A new study finds there were more than twice as many big earthquakes in the first quarter of 2014 as compared with the average since 1979.

And this is not something that has just started happening. As that same article explained, this is all part of a much longer trend…

The average rate of big earthquakes — those larger than magnitude 7 — has been 10 per year since 1979, the study reports. That rate rose to 12.5 per year starting in 1992, and then jumped to 16.7 per year starting in 2010 — a 65 percent increase compared to the rate since 1979. This increase accelerated in the first three months of 2014 to more than double the average since 1979, the researchers report.

In particular, things really seem to be heating up in the middle portion of the United States. As I mentioned at the start of this article, the frequency of earthquakes in the central and eastern parts of the nation has quintupled over the past 30 years…

According to the USGS, the frequency of earthquakes in the central and eastern U.S. has quintupled, to an average of 100 a year during the 2011-2013 period, up from only 20 per year during the 30-year period to 2000.

Most of these quakes were minor, but research published by the USGS earlier this year demonstrated that a relatively minor magnitude 5.0 quake caused by wastewater injection after conventional oil drilling triggered a much bigger, 5.7 magnitude quake in Prague, Okla.

“We know the hazard has increased for small and moderate size earthquakes. We don’t know as well how much the hazard has increased for large earthquakes. Our suspicion is it has but we are working on understanding this,” said William Ellsworth, a scientist with the USGS.

What we are watching happen is truly unprecedented. Oklahoma alone has experienced more than 2,300 earthquakes so far this year. Scientists don’t really know what to make of this alarming increase in seismic activity.

Could all of this be leading up to something really big?

And what will things look like if we do get hit by a magnitude 8 or a magnitude 9 earthquake in a very heavily populated area?

Please feel free to share what you think by posting a comment below…

Michael T. Snyder is a graduate of the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia and has a law degree and an LLM from the University of Florida Law School. He is an attorney that has worked for some of the largest and most prominent law firms in Washington D.C. and who now spends his time researching and writing and trying to wake the American people up. You can follow his work on The Economic Collapse blog, End of the American Dream and The Truth Wins. His new novel entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on Amazon.com.

I usually write these articles from my home office. Right now, however, I can’t be there.

Instead, I’m writing to you from a family member’s home, where I’ll be staying for a few days.

It wasn’t a planned visit, but something unexpected came up that forced me from my home.

You see I live smack-dab in the middle of a city. There is a small park across the street but for the most part, I’m surrounded by concrete, asphalt, cars, and noise. And earlier this week, a construction project began in my building that made it nearly impossible to get quality work done. After being unable to take it anymore, I decided to get out of the city and spend a few days in a place where I could get a little more peace and quiet.

The environment around you plays a significant role in your health. It affects your stress levels, ability to sleep, concentration, and a number of physiological systems. It might not seem like a big deal, but where you live can put you at risk for a number of health problems.

The U.S. Forest Services recently collaborated with a group of scientists and other professionals to assess the value of the physical environment on a person’s health. They learned that a person’s proximity to trees can have a significant impact on their health risks. Air pollution removed by trees can save more than 850 lives per year and prevent roughly 670,000 cases of acute respiratory symptoms.

If you live in an urban area (80% of Americans do), you should find this interesting. Not only do you have to deal with the effects of bright lights, noise pollution, and a sometimes very stressful high-paced lifestyle (New York City was recently revealed to be the “unhappiest” city in America), but you also have to deal with a number of pollutants that attack your respiratory, cardiac, pulmonary, and vascular systems. Poor air quality can result in cancers, hypertension, and other serious health conditions.

Obviously, the outcome of this study won’t cause cities to be replaced with forested areas, but it is important to consider where you spend your time. If you’re retired and live in the city, for example, moving to a quieter area with more trees might be helpful to your health. If relocation isn’t possible, spending time out of the city or in city parks could also add some relief.

Some cities have taken note of the importance of trees and have been dedicating more land for park space, increased planting, and cultivating to create a healthier environment for city dwellers. In fact, the study said that because of their proximity to people, urban trees are more important than rural trees and the health effects are much more far-reaching.

Finally, pollution reduction is not only beneficial to your health; it’s also a good thing for the healthcare system. Estimates are that even a one-percent improvement in air quality could save nearly $7.0 billion per year in healthcare costs. So in a way, that hike through the woods could be saving you some money in the long run.

There’s no doubt that living in the city creates some health risks, both physical and mental. Getting off of the concrete and asphalt and heading to the trees, whether it be for a few days or just a couple hours, can allow you to relax, reset, catch a breath of fresh air—and ultimately save your health!

has a distinguished reputation as an authority on nutrition, vitamin D and calcium metabolism, hormones, and medical research. His 30 years of clinical experience, 12 years of medical school teaching experience, and medical degree from the University of Pennsylvania give Dr. Juan a leading edge in his expertise. He is well versed in both traditional and alternative medicine and has written and researched breakthrough papers on a variety of medical subjects. Dr. Juan is currently on the staff of a holistic pain relief center in San Francisco and he lends his experience to The Vitamin Doctor.

Following the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant meltdown, biological samples were obtained only after extensive delays, limiting the information that could be gained about the impacts of that historic disaster. Determined not to repeat the shortcomings of the Chernobyl studies, scientists began gathering biological information only a few months after the disastrous meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan in 2011. Results of these studies are now beginning to reveal serious biological effects of the Fukushima radiation on non-human organisms ranging from plants to butterflies to birds.

A series of articles summarizing these studies has now been published in the Journal of Heredity. These describe widespread impacts, ranging from population declines to genetic damage to responses by the repair mechanisms that help organisms cope with radiation exposure.

“A growing body of empirical results from studies of birds, monkeys, butterflies, and other insects suggests that some species have been significantly impacted by the radioactive releases related to the Fukushima disaster,” stated Dr. Timothy Mousseau of the University of South Carolina, lead author of one of the studies.

Most importantly, these studies supply a baseline for future research on the effects of ionizing radiation exposure to the environment.

Common to all of the published studies is the hypothesis that chronic (low-dose) exposure to ionizing radiation results in genetic damage and increased mutation rates in reproductive and non-reproductive cells.

One of the studies (Hayashi et al. 2014) documented the effects of radiation on rice by exposing healthy seedlings to low-level gamma radiation at a contaminated site in Fukushima Prefecture. After three days, a number of effects were observed, including activation of genes involved in self-defense, ranging from DNA replication and repair to stress responses to cell death.

“The experimental design employed in this work will provide a new way to test how the entire rice plant genome responds to ionizing radiation under field conditions,” explained Dr. Randeep Rakwal of the University of Tsukuba in Japan, one of the authors of the study.

Another team of researchers (Taira et al. 2014) examined the response of the pale grass blue butterfly, one of the most common butterfly species in Japan, to radiation exposure at the Fukushima site. They found size reduction, slowed growth, high mortality and morphological abnormality both at the Fukushima site and among laboratory-bred butterflies with parents collected from the contaminated site.

Multiple sources of exposure were included in the butterfly study. “Non-contaminated larvae fed leaves from contaminated host plants collected near the reactor showed high rates of abnormality and mortality,” explained Dr. Joji Otaki of the University of the Ryukyus in Okinawa, Japan. Some of their results suggested the possible evolution of radiation resistance in Fukushima butterflies as well.

A review of genetic and ecological studies for a range of other species at both Chernobyl and Fukushima (Mousseau 2014) revealed significant consequences of radiation. Population censuses of birds, butterflies, and cicadas at Fukushima showed major declines attributable to radiation exposure. Morphological effects, such as aberrant feathers on barn swallows, were also observed. The authors suggest that long-term studies at Chernobyl could predict likely effects in the future at the Fukushima site.

All of these studies highlight the need for early and ongoing monitoring at sites of accidental radiation release. “Detailed analyses of genetic impacts to natural populations could provide the information needed to predict recovery times for wild communities at Fukushima as well as any sites of future nuclear accidents,” Mousseau said. “There is an urgent need for greater investment in basic scientific research of the wild animals and plants of Fukushima.”

I guess it takes global warming hysteria to get the bioethics movement to criticize what is known in the trade as “artificial reproductive technologies” or ART.

But now, in the ever more radical Journal of Medical Ethics, Cristina Richie, of Boston College’s Department of Theology, argues that these technologies should be regulated to limit the number of children–called “carbon legacies,” as a means of fighting climate change. From the article:

A carbon footprint is the aggregate of resource use and carbon emissions over a person’s life. A carbon legacy occurs when a person chooses to procreate. All people have carbon footprints; only people with biological children have carbon legacies.

I don’t know if Richie coined the term, but it is ridiculous. Children are children, not bundles of carbon producers.

ART is an almost unregulated industry, a lamentable circumstance with which many bioethicists are content. But Richie says global warming has to change the field’s thinking about ART.

Through the use of ARTs multiple children are born, adding to worldwide carbon emissions. This is a burden on the already over-taxed ecosystem to support new beings who might not have existed without medical intervention. It is therefore the obligation of environmental policymakers, the ethical and medical communities, and even society to carefully weigh the interests of our shared planet with a business that intentionally creates more humans when we must reduce our carbon impact.

All those IVF babies are melting the ice caps!

While population growth and ARTs are not the primary environmental issue that should concern ecologists and bioethicists, the numbers of ART babies are increasing at an exponential rate. If we were to look at these numbers in terms of carbon emissions instead of raw population growth data, the statistics look grim.

No, grim is the exploitation of surrogates in biological colonialism and the eugenic impetus that has sunk its fangs deep into the heart of the industry. In the face of such human objectification, sorry, I can’t get upset about global warming.

It’s time to regulate!

The unregulated ART business can no longer be endorsed and the medical industry ought not operate in an environmental vacuum. Retrenchment in all areas of life is the key to slowing down or halting carbon emissions that lead to climate change. For each child made through medical intervention a carbon legacy results. ARTs should be allocated with due concern for the environment and sober consideration for the implications of climate change.

Carbon caps on the fertility business and eliminating funded ARTs for those who are not biologically infertile are the beginning of an environmentally sustainable ART business.​

“Political language is designed to make liessound truthful and murder respectable.”George Orwell

The conditions in the Gulf Coast region are so bad, that some are actually talking about a mass evacuation of the coastal regions in Louisiana. Others think the potential devastation is so dangerous that the entire Gulf Coast region should be evacuated. Others think that all is well in the Gulf. What exactly is the truth?

I have been investigating the events surrounding the Gulf Coast oil explosion for over four years. As I sit here mulling over the evidence which is derived from the full spectrum of research protocols ranging from anecdotal evidence to scientific evidence to government acknowledgment of a series of crises which appears to be imperiling Louisiana, I do not pretend that I have all the answers. However, after systematically reviewing the available evidence, I am extremely fearful for the potential consequences which could be catastrophic for many of the 40 million residents in the Gulf.

This topic has largely been swept under the covers by the Obama administration and the mainstream media, with a few exceptions. In this article, it is my intention to bring forth legitimate concerns for public discussion with regard to the safety and welfare of Gulf Coast residents, especially for those people living in Louisiana’s coastal areas.

All Is Well, Go Back To Sleep

The government would have us believe that all is well in the Gulf. In fact, a few years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) through its air monitoring system, on June 10, 2010, presumably found air quality levels which were “normal” on the Gulf coastline. Of course this is the same EPA whose former director, Christine Todd, boldly stated that the post 911 air was fit to breathe. Also, in June 2010, Obama’s personal point man on the spill, Thad Allen, stated “the well no longer posed any threat to the Gulf” and subsequent cleanup crews ceased all remaining operations with regard to cleaning up the destroyed oil well. Thad Allen’s statement followed Obama’s declaration in which the President boldly proclaimed that the Gulf is safe and “open for business”. Officials from both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the EPA echoed Obama’s safety claims. And what I have discovered from the data, is that every one of these government individuals, who are entrusted with ensuring the safety of the general public, were lying through their teeth.

There were strong and early indications that the use of Corexit, combined with the leaking oil, were producing, both long term and short term, catastrophic environmental and individual health effects. Oil and Corexit, used to “disperse” the oil spill have impacted untold numbers of Gulf residents’ health. Additionally, both the food supply and the food chain are being adversely impacted. The air and the subsequent evapotranspiration cycle has been irreversibly altered which, in turn, impacts the water table and the safety of water supplies as well as the safety of crops. The most devastating finding relates the events of the oil spill to the phenomena of the ever-widening Louisiana sinkholes and the related underground explosions as well as the very high concentration of toxic and highly flammable methane in the air and in the water.

One of the major threats to the Gulf Coast comes from an imperiled food supply which is the result from the explosion on the Deep Water Horizon oil rig.

The Tainted Food Supply

It was known very early on that the Gulf Coast food supply was severely compromised and the health of the residents was in jeopardy, despite government denials and mainstream media cover-ups. A case in point, while dining with his family at Vinnie’s Raw Bar Restaurant in the Charlotte, North Carolina area, Matthew Robertson found oil in his seafood. While covering the story, WBTV reporter, Susan Baustista, also acknowledged there was a black substance stuck to the inside of Robertson’s sea food. Additionally, Channel 8, Fox News, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, was told by Vinnie’s Raw Bar restaurant’s manager that he did, indeed, confirm the customer’s story and says he’s had problems getting oyster shipments because of contamination resulting from the oil spill, unfortunately, this station saw fit to scrub the report from its website. However, similar warnings regarding the region’s food safety are appearing up and down the local Gulf Coast media on such stations as WLOX TV in Gulfport, MS. Yet, Fox, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc., have not run one credible story on the dangers of food toxicity in the Gulf’s food chain. Granted, the abovementioned cases represent just a few anecdotal cases which are representative of tens of thousands of accounts. However, anecdotal evidence is not science and these cases could be discounted as the exception and not the rule. Yet, the largely ignored voices of scientists echo these anecdotal claims and they do so with hard, verifiable data.

The Quiet Voices of Science Assess Gulf Food Safety

Scientists at The University of Southern Mississippi and Tulane University have found oil in the post-larvae of blue crabs entering coastal marshes along the Gulf Coast signaling that oil may be entering estuarine food chains. Dr. Perry observed that “I have never seen anything like this.” Larvae are at the bottom of the food chain. Lesser life forms, are consumed by life forms which are higher on the food chain and the toxic effects of the Corexit will bioaccumulate throughout the food chain. This conclusion echoed the findings of lab samples taken by scientists at the Dauphin Island Sea Lab shows oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster has made its way into the Gulf food chain as well. These particular scientists have found signs of an oil-and-dispersant mix under the shells of tiny blue crab larvae in the Gulf of Mexico which is a clear indication that the unprecedented use of dispersants in the BP oil spill has broken up the oil into toxic droplets so tiny that they have easily entered the food chain. These studies and other similar studies remain unchallenged by the authorities with regard to methodology and results. In short, the Obama administration is choosing to ignore these credible scientists by simply repeating the mantra that “all is well” in the Gulf of Mexico.

Potential Effects on Life Span in the Gulf

Kim Anderson’s Oregon State University (OSU) researchers, from the OSU College of Agricultural Sciences, began a test-retest comparative analysis for the carcinogenic contaminant polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and its biodegradable partner, OPAHs, which appears after the application of Corexit and subsequent exposure to ultraviolet rays. Stunningly, the OSU researchers found a 40 fold increase in these carcinogenic compounds in the comparative test-retest period. The OSU findings replicate the conclusions of Mace Barron et al regarding the toxicity of Corexit and its use in the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The Exxon Valdez oil spill and subsequent clean-up activities provides the only case study in the history of the United States involving significant exposure to the types of toxins discussed in this article as the result of an oil spill. Interestingly, Anderson’s Oregon State University’s original data went missing forcing the research team to begin again. It is clear that somebody did not want this data to reach the public.

Findings, related to the longevity of the Exxon Valdez clean-up workers, are very disturbing as the collective lifespan statistics, for the Corexit exposed cleanup crews, revealed that the average life expectancy is a mere 51 years of age and nearly all of the Exxon Valdez clean-up workers are dead. These findings can leave little doubt that BP’s use of Corexit has seriously compromised the collective life span of Gulf Coast residents. I can draw no other conclusion than to state that the events in the Gulf, to date, constitute a slow-burn genocidal event in which, depending on the age at first exposure to the Corexit, the oil and the resulting methane concentrations, will see life spans in the impacted areas decline by as much as 25-50% with regard to longevity based upon the life-span figures from the Exxon Valdez clean-up workers. I believe that based upon the data, it is reasonable to assume that within one short generation, the life expectancy of the Gulf will rival the worst of the third world.

An Environmental Armageddon in the Making

In addition to imperiling the food supply, the Gulf disaster is overwhelming the environment and threatens to bring disaster to the southeastern portion of the United States on an unprecedented scale. The holocaust in the Gulf has grown to such proportions that the European Union Times reports that an extremely grave report was prepared for President Medvedev by Russia’s Ministry of Natural Resources in which the report warns that the BP spill will become the worst environmental catastrophe in all of human history and will bring total destruction to the Eastern half of the North American continent. The environmental damage has spread as far north as Memphis as local residents report toxic rainfall, containing Corexit, is falling on and damaging local farmers crops. This report aired over two years ago and was among the first indicators that the evapotranspiration cycle was being impacted by the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the subsequent use of Corexit to “disperse” the spilled oil.

The oil emanating from the seafloor contains about 40% methane, compared with about 5% found in typical oil deposits, said John Kessler, a Texas A&M University oceanographer who is studying the impact of methane from the spill. Kessler et al, in June of 2010, warned the public that methane was not going to dissipate on its own and that it would continue to increase and come ashore with unpredictable results. Merchant Marine expert, Captain Kelly Sweeney, while appearing on The Common Sense Show, on July 10, 2010, made similar predictions in which he stated that he and many of his sources feared catastrophic methane explosions near several coastal cities which could be triggered by the right atmospheric conditions combined with the high levels of highly flammable methane (click here to listen to Hour 1).

Unfortunately, nobody predicted the scenario which is unfolding across several Louisiana communities in which high concentrations of methane laden oil has made its way into the salt domes and into the water table constituting a significant threat to millions of Gulf Coast residents.

John Boudreaux, director of the Assumption (LA.) Parish Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness has said there are concerns that the gas can build pressure under the clay layer that lies above their local aquifer. According to Boudreaux and geologists, once the aquifer reaches a pressure greater than 75 to 85 pounds per square inch, the clay layer might not hold back the accumulated gas and a set of major explosions could occur. Something unexpectedly triggered an emergency flare 40 feet high at that Crosstext two years ago. An explosion of this magnitude would be within the range of one and a half B83 thermonuclear (hydrogen) bombs, according to scientists. Louisiana officials have suddenly and without comment banned outdoor fires. Ray Charles could see these dots connecting on the wall.

In July 2010, BP found a mega pocket of highly pressurized methane gas in the Gulf of Mexico. The EPA and the President chose to ignore the publicized findings. Nobody in the mainstream media bothered to speculate as to the potential dangers. Publicly, the federal government did not answer the obvious questions, namely, where are the concentrations of the mega pocket of highly pressurized methane gas likely to migrate to and what would be the ultimate effect? It has been 27 months since this discovery, and the public is expected to believe that BP and the government had no idea of the ramifications of the discovery of this magnitude. This flies in the face of believability!

The massive sinkhole and enormous amount of escaping methane gas from the Bayou Corne disaster area is particularly concerning. Local officials have made repeated references to,“powerful underground forces”, which are causing the monster sinkhole in the swampland, which subsequently bent a gas pipeline which then formed a shocking right angle in a 400-foot section next to the bubbling hole. Ultimately, this led to the evacuation of 150 homes, temporarily shutting down a four-mile stretch of nearby Highway 70, and led to a heated discussion regarding the likelihood of a methane-bubble tsunami from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico BP explosion. Government officials warned the Parish President that the Bayou Corne sinkhole has extremely high levels of methane in the nearby water wells. Subsequently, officials have warned the local leadership that these high levels of methane pose serious risks to health, fire and could even lead to large explosions. Officials have further warned that local residents needed to obey ANY FUTURE mandatory evacuation orders. However, the mass evacuation expected to occur last year, has inexplicably not been acted upon.

After looking at the government’s own data and examining the totality of government’s actions, I have concluded that the government is acting with extreme depraved indifference with regard to the citizen’s health near the 28 sinkholes. Let me be crystal clear about one point, methane kills and it can kill silently if exposure occurs in sufficient quantities. Even if the people in Louisiana, near the 28 reported sinkholes, were to, by the grace of God, able to somehow escape lethal exposure, methane in smaller doses can still mimic other health conditions and can fool a general medical practitioner but the conditions could still lead to a person’s demise. The latter fact related to methane exposure mimicking other health conditions works to the government’s and BP’s benefit because it temporarily provides them with plausible deniability. We have witnessed this same strategy as the BP health mobile health clinics, designed to treat local victims of the spill and exposure to Corexit, were purposely misdiagnosing clear cases of Corexit toxicity to escape the liability consequences.

There is no defense against leaking methane. No residential building is secure enough to keep the methane from penetrating homes and offices. Methane has been proven to enter structures through foundational cracks or through sewer traps if the house or office is built on or near landfills, and in the case of Louisiana, it can come through salt domes where the oil and the Corexit has been accumulating for nearly two and a half years.

Methane gas can also be ingested. Originally thought to be a remote possibility, methane gas can migrate into the natural water reservoirs. Yet, this is exactly what has happened. And these precise conditions are serving to impact the drinking water supplies as well as the safety of area crops because of the evapotranspirational cycle. This is not a predicted event in Louisiana, it is exactly what is happening right now.

The only way to determine that someone has been exposed to methane, is through extensive laboratory analysis conducted by trained medical personnel. In the event of methane exposure, the only way for the victim to escape with only minimal medical consequences, is to be rushed to a nearby hospital without delay. The victim would have to be put on animmediate supply of oxygen along with a life support mask and this would be accompanied by an intravenous drip to avoid further dehydration.

Please allow me to connect some dots with regard to the previous paragraphs. On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded. For over two years, large concentrations of carcinogenic material and highly flammable methane gas has been bio-accumulating in the estuaries, the beaches, the water table, the salt domes and this event is now part of the evapotranspirational cycle. In other words, these toxic conditions are now ingrained in the eco-weather system in the Gulf and federal officials sit idly and are doing nothing to ensure public safety.

From the work of people like Dr. Subra, researchers at Oregon State University, Tulane University and the University of South Florida, we now know that millions of people have been exposed to abnormally high rates of benzene, xylene and other cancer-causing chemicals. The public has been warned by the alternative media, and a few outspoken members of the mainstream media as well as a plethora of geologists, chemists and oil experts that large amounts of methane was making its way ashore in the Gulf Coast region. The resulting sinkholes, which are still greatly expanding as of this writing, and the large amounts of methane gas escaping into the air as well as infiltrating the water table, are placing untold numbers of Gulf Coast residents in a very dire set of circumstances.

When I first spoke out on my show and in my writings, in 2010 and in 2011, about the dangers of methane and what it could possibly mean for the Gulf, I was referred to as an alarmist in some mainstream media circles. To those critics who still hold to these allegations that I am fear mongering for whatever personal or professional benefit, please explain the meaning of following warning to me: The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (DRN) has issued a Declaration of Emergency and Directive Advisory which states that the gas in the sinkhole area should be considered to be life-threatening. Does the mainstream media have a new definition of the term “life-threatening” which would cause them to all but ignore this ominous warning? I would ask the critics, the federal government, and BP to explain away the connections between the scientific facts, the warning that the conditions in Louisiana are life-threatening and the subsequent ban on fires by government officials. Then, when they are done trying to explain away the DRN warning, perhaps they would like to address the passage of mass fatality planning legislation contained in H.R. 6566 which amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by requiring the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency…”to provide guidance and counseling for mass fatality planning, and for other purposes. And while the federal government is at it, perhaps they would like to explain the coincidental timing of the FEMA earthquake preparedness drills taking place along the New Madrid fault line which is precisely where some of the methane laden oil and Corexit is migrating to. Just a coincidence you say? Then maybe those people who are hell bent on staying in a state of denial, can explain why FEMA thinks that Louisiana needs massive amounts of generators to be sent to the region at taxpayers’ expense? How many coincidences can one accept until an unmistakable pattern of cover-up and criminal neglect, on the part of the government, becomes painfully obvious to even the most ardent of the Kool-Aid drinkers?

Should the coastal regions of Louisiana be evacuated? We have certainly seen the proof that government officials have actually announced plans to evacuate many areas around the sinkholes, only to change their minds without explanation. This leads one to wonder if the government is trying avoid a mass panic and they are hoping for the best without preparing for the worst. After all, the election is only a couple of weeks away and the crisis in the Gulf did happen on Obama’s watch.

A man has to have his priorities.

Personally, I think that the canary in the mine approach to this phenomena would be best served if the President were to spend two or three days campaigning in the Bayou country in and around coastal regions, near the 28 sinkholes which are still expanding by the day. Come on Mr. President, put your money where your mouth is, and prove to the American people that the Gulf is indeed open for business. And while you are at it Mr. President, order up some crab and shrimp. And please make certain that you order and eat exactly what the locals eat with no specially prepared dishes made just for you. Mr. President, while you are in the Gulf, you should also take a deep breath and show the people of the region, that despite your lack of a legitimate birth certificate, that you are indeed one of them and you are willing to risk your life in the same manner as you are asking them to do.

Dave Hodges is the host of the popular weekly talk show, The Common Sense Show, which airs on Sunday nights from 9pm – Midnight (central) on the Republic Broadcasting Network and its 29 affiliate stations. Dave also hosts a website (www.thecommonsenseshow.com) in which he writes daily articles on the geopolitical state of affairs both nationally and internationally. The theme of Dave’s show and website centers around exposing the corruption and treason which has invaded the presidency and Congress as well as their corporate and banking benefactors. Dave is an award winning psychology, sociology, statistics and research professor. He is also a former college basketball coach who retired as the winningest coach in his college’s history. A mental health therapist by training, Dave brings a broad based perspective in his fight against the corrupt central banking cartels which have hijacked the US government. Dave and his wife, Nora have one son and they presently reside in rural Arizona approximately 25 miles north of the greater Phoenix area. Dave was drawn to the fight for freedom when the globalist central banking forces, led by Senator John McCain, attempted to seize his home and property and that of 300 of his neighbors, without one dime being offered in compensation. This attempted public theft of private property was conducted for the purpose of securing cheap land in which the globalists intended on putting in an international highway through their area known as the Canamex Corridor. Dave’s community appointed him the spokesperson and eventually his community won their fight against the bankers and their front man, Senator McCain. This event launched Dave’s career as a broadcaster and an investigative journalist. Dave’s website presently enjoys over a half a million visitors every month.

Never before have we seen so much death along the west coast of North America. Massive numbers of sea stars, bluefin tuna, sardines, anchovies, herring, oysters, salmon, marine mammals and marine birds are dying, and experts are puzzled. We are being told that we could even see “local extinctions” of some of these sea creatures. So are all of these deaths related? If so, what in the world could be causing this to happen? What has changed so dramatically that it would cause massive numbers of sea creatures to die along the west coast?

The following are 15 examples of this phenomenon. Most scientists do not believe that these incidents are related. But when you put them all together, it paints quite a disturbing picture…

#1 A “mystery plague” is turning sea stars all along the west coast of the United States and Canada into piles of goo…

Sea stars, commonly referred to as starfish, have been dying off in alarming numbers along the entire West Coast, from Baja, Mexico, to Alaska. According to reports from the Seattle Aquarium, some parts of Puget Sound and the San Juan Islands have seen population declines of up to 80 percent.

On the Oregon coast, according to CoastWatch Volunteer Coordinator Fawn Custer, “Last December, we had less than 1 percent of sea star wasting. By May 1, more than 5 percent of sea stars were affected. Now, I would say, in some areas, it is up to 90 percent.”

Pacific sardine populations have shown an alarming decline in recent years, and some evidence suggests anchovy and herring populations may be dropping as well.

The declines could push fishermen toward other currently unmanaged “forage fish,” such as saury, smelt and sand lance, stealing a critical food source relied on by salmon and other economically important predators.

In response, the Pacific Fishery Management Council is considering an ecosystem-based management approach that recognizes the fundamental role of forage fish in the Pacific marine food web. Tiny, but abundant, these small schooling fish feed on plankton and, in turn, fill the bellies of Oregon’s iconic marine species, including salmon, sharks, whales, sea lions and sea birds.

From white-winged scoters and surf scoters to long-tailed ducks, murres, loons and some seagulls, the number of everyday marine birds here has plummeted dramatically in recent decades.

Scoters are down more than 75 percent from what they were in the late 1970s. Murres have dropped even more. Western grebes have mostly vanished, falling from several hundred thousand birds to about 20,000.

#6 Those that work in the seafood industry on the west coast are noticing some very “unusual” mutations. For example, a red king crab that was recently caught in Alaska was colored bright blue.

#7 Pelicans along the California coastline are “refusing to mate“. This is being blamed on a lack of fish for the pelicans to eat. As a result, we are seeing less than one percent of the usual number of baby pelicans.

#15 According to a study conducted by researchers at Oregon State University, radiation levels in tuna caught off the coast of Oregon approximately tripled in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Could it be possible that at least some of these deaths are related to what has been happening at Fukushima?

We do know that fish caught just off the shore from Fukushima have been tested to have radioactive cesium that is up to 124 times above the level that is considered to be safe.

And we also know that a study conducted at the University of South Wales concluded that the main radioactive plume of water from Fukushima would reach our shores at some point during 2014.

Is it so unreasonable to think that the greatest nuclear disaster in human history could have something to do with the death of all of these sea creatures?

Just consider what one very experienced Australian boat captain discovered when he crossed the Pacific last year. According to him, it felt as though “the ocean itself was dead“…

The next leg of the long voyage was from Osaka to San Francisco and for most of that trip the desolation was tinged with nauseous horror and a degree of fear.

“After we left Japan, it felt as if the ocean itself was dead,” Macfadyen said.

“We hardly saw any living things. We saw one whale, sort of rolling helplessly on the surface with what looked like a big tumour on its head. It was pretty sickening.

“I’ve done a lot of miles on the ocean in my life and I’m used to seeing turtles, dolphins, sharks and big flurries of feeding birds. But this time, for 3000 nautical miles there was nothing alive to be seen.”

In place of the missing life was garbage in astounding volumes.

“Part of it was the aftermath of the tsunami that hit Japan a couple of years ago. The wave came in over the land, picked up an unbelievable load of stuff and carried it out to sea. And it’s still out there, everywhere you look.”

What do you think?

Is Fukushima to blame, or do you think that something else is causing massive numbers of sea creatures to die?

Please feel free to share what you think by posting a comment below…

Michael T. Snyder is a graduate of the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia and has a law degree and an LLM from the University of Florida Law School. He is an attorney that has worked for some of the largest and most prominent law firms in Washington D.C. and who now spends his time researching and writing and trying to wake the American people up. You can follow his work on The Economic Collapse blog, End of the American Dream and The Truth Wins. His new novel entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on Amazon.com.

Geo-engineering is an umbrella term for deliberate climate intervention that includes spraying the sky with aerosols to reflect solar radiation away from Earth in order to cool the planet and to save the environment and humanity from the effects of supposedly man-made global warming. There is evidence that this program has already been implemented for many years using unidentified chemical aerosols, known as chemtrails.

A geo-engineering/chemtrails experiment using a balloon to spray sulfur particles into the sky to reflect solar radiation back into space is planned for New Mexico within a year by scientist David Keith. Keith manages a multimillion dollar research fund for Bill Gates. Gates has also gathered a team of scientist lobbyists that have been asking governments for hand-outs to for their climate manipulation experiments with taxpayer money.

Geo-engineering is touted as a last-ditch effort to save people and the planet from global warming. But the truth is that geo-engineering can alter rain cycles leading to droughts and famine that could result in billions of deaths!

Therefore, Bill Gates appears to be using his concern over global warming to cloak his real intent of controlling weather and/or depopulation.

Mount Pinatubo Model for Geo-Engineering Drought, Famine & Death

The Mount Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines erupted in 1991, spewing 22 million tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the upper atmosphere/stratosphere. A 2008 study from Rutgers Universitybased a model on Mount Pinatubo sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and applied it to geo-engineering; the scientists said that they expected overall global cooling, but some regions would experience an increase in greenhouse gases and warming, as was recorded after Pinatubo erupted.

Based on the SO2 volcanic model, the scientists reported that geo-engineering aerosols sprayed in tropical or Arctic regions are likely to disrupt African and Asian/Indian summer monsoons, threatening the food and water supply for billions of people!

Additional negative consequences include ozone depletion, reduced strength of hydrological cycles resulting in decreased river flow and soil moisture.While the scientists, led by Alan Robock, who performed the experiments appear to believe in man-made global warming, they do have stern warnings against the dangers of geo-engineering.2012 Geo-Engineering StudyThe Max Planck Institute conducted a study of geo-engineering models based on volcanoes, but the study was unrealistic because it used climate models with 400% more carbon dioxide than the pre-industrial era. However, their results showed that geo-engineering will cause a strong decrease in rainfall (a 15% loss in North America and Eurasia and a 20% decrease in South America). Overall, global rainfall would be reduced by 5%. (Source)Unless one considers the financial benefits (government and private grants), it is bewildering why the academia would support geo-engineering.

Geo-Engineering Can Cause Warming

Geo-engineering can actually cause global warming when tampering with clouds in the upper atmosphere/stratosphere. The Gates-funded scientist lobbyists propose spraying sulfur dioxide 30 miles above Earth and the New Mexico experiment proposes spraying 15 miles above surface- both of these fall within the parameters of the upper atmosphere/stratosphere.The troposphere is the lowest portion of the Earth’s atmosphere, extending an average of 4 to 12 miles above surface. Clouds that are in the lower troposphere are generally thick white clouds with a high rate of albedo or reflectivity of the sun’s rays away from Earth that produce a cooling effect. However, the experiments are to be conducted above this level in the upper atmosphere/stratosphere.The upper atmosphere is called the stratosphere and extends as high as 31 miles above the Earth’s surface. The clouds in the higher stratosphere are generally thin, have a lower albedo reflective rate and act like a blanket that traps heat. Both experiments propose dumping SO2 in the upper atmosphere/stratosphere, creating a heat-trapping blanket that would theoretically increase warming. This is the opposite of Gates’ stated goal to cool the planet.(Note: most long-distance planes fly at 6 miles above surface, in the lower atmosphere/troposhere)What About the EPA?

Given that the EPA claims that sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions cause health problems and early death and that they are shuttering coal plants over emissions, you may be wondering why the EPA isn’t screaming bloody murder over Gates’ SO2 aerosol-spraying experiments.

The answer can be found on the EPA’s own website where they promote giving regulatory power over geo-engineering/chemtrails to the UN and/or developed countries that fund the programs. The EPA is abdicating power to international interests.Bill Gates’ failure to address the EPA’s dire warnings of the dangers of SO2 is proof that he is aware that the EPA’s claims are grossly overstated or that he doesn’t really care about the environment and has ulterior motives.Global Warming and UN Control

Global warming is a ruse that claims that life on planet Earth is in grave danger- this alarmism is used for political gain. Global warming is a hoax based on manipulated science from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UN currently is assuming control over geo-engineering through its Convention on Biological Diversity treaty that declared a moratorium on experiments, except in some cases.

Conclusion

Geo-engineering is either a risky adventure to test ignorant theories or a scheme to control weather, water and food supplies.

Bill Gates’ record as a depopulation enthusiast supports the argument that geo-engineering is a weather domination scheme that may be used as a weapon threatening the lives of billions of people.

This article first appeared at Morphcity, a great resource for information about Agenda 21, the environment, and the globalist agenda. Read other articles by Cassandra Anderson HERE.

Social Profiles

Facebook

Disclaimer

In no event shall TheSleuthJournal.com or our affiliates, employees, agents, content providers, or licensors be liable for any indirect, consequential, special, incidental, or punitive damages related to the content or any errors or omissions in the content.

Neither TheSleuthJournal.com nor the Natural Content in particular articles should be solely relied upon as preventive, cure, or treatment for any disease or medical condition. It is recommended that you consult with a licensed medical doctor or physician before acting upon any recommendation that is made via our website.